Launchpad bug statuses

[Forest Bond]

Hi,

On Wed, Oct 03, 2007 at 07:56:59PM +0200, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
> Christian Robottom Reis wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 03, 2007 at 02:54:53PM +0200, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
> >>> Who is going to add upstream projects for the thousands of packages in
> >>> Ubuntu?   I don't imagine this approach is very scalable.  
> >> I agree with that. It doesn't look valid for thousands of packages, but
> >> even for one I don't think it's Ok. Not because of the work, but why
> >> should we have an upstream bug tracker if we aren't upstream?
> > 
> > There is some confusion here. Launchpad allows you to register a project
> > and to indicate that it uses an external bugtracker. Firefox is one such
> > example project (bug there are many):
> 
> I know that, and I have registered some external bug trackers to add bug
> watches. And that's useful (although as everything in this live, it can
> be improved). However, that's not what I was talking about. I was
> replying to this:
> 
> > Isn't the correct way to handle this to add the upstream project to
> > launchpad and set the bug so that it also affects upstream?  Then you can be
> > explicit about the bug's status upstream.
> 
> And that says (or at least I understand) that I don't need to add a
> remote bug watch, but register the project in Launchpad, and then open a
> task for it (without being a remote watch). Then *I* would be able to
> change the status. That just adds a *lot* of work to the workflow, and
> thus I disagree with it.

I think this is a reasonable thing to do if the upstream project doesn't have a
bug tracker, or if they aren't tracking the bug in question.  Why wouldn't it
be?  One way or another, you have to track the following bits:

* Has upstream committed a fix for this bug?
* Has uptream released a fix for this bug?
* Has Ubuntu committed this fix?
* Has Ubuntu released this fix?

If it seems like a lot of book keeping, it's because it *is*.  You are tracking
a fair amount of data, and expecting LP to enable you to do it with a single
status field.  That hardly seems fair.

With a couple of usability enhancements to LP, I don't see this kind of use case
being all that unwieldy, and I'm not really *that* fond of paperwork.

-Forest
-- 
Forest Bond
http://www.alittletooquiet.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel/attachments/20071003/be47f2e4/attachment-0001.pgp